Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The scene played out hurriedly in the morning. Graham and Durbin thought they would be meeting with Trump alone and were surprised to find immigration hard-liners such as Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) at the meeting. White House and Capitol Hill aides say Stephen Miller, the president’s top immigration official, was concerned there could be a deal proposed that was too liberal and made sure conservative lawmakers were present.

It's comforting to know that the only thing standing between a Trump and a deal, is Stephen 'Worm-tongue' Miller doing his best to derail the damn thing.

I've been trying to figure out the angle on this extremely tedious and meaningless stand the admin is taking against the WSJ quote on 'I' vs 'I'd' and my conclusion is this is an amateur hour attempt at trying to change the story from 'shithole'. There are far dumber things they've let slide in the past, from much less kind publications for this to be real.

It's the WSJ, so no claims of MSM bias. I think Cohen(?) issued a non-denial denial. My best read is one person is under NDA, another was going to come out on a morning show but pulled out and is under NDA, a third person was relayed some of it at the time was happening and maybe there's a fourth who's not under NDA?

The timing also puts it as having occurred a few months after Barron was born.

President Donald Trump’s lawyer used a private Delaware company to pay a former adult-film star $130,000 in return for her agreeing to not publicly discuss an alleged sexual encounter with Mr. Trump, according to corporate records and people familiar with the matter.

The lawyer, Michael Cohen, established Essential Consultants LLC, on Oct. 17, 2016, just before the 2016 presidential election, corporate documents show. Mr. Cohen, who is based in New York, then used a bank account linked to the entity to send the payment to the client-trust account of a lawyer representing the woman, Stephanie Clifford, one of the people said.

Mr. Cohen’s decision to establish the company in Delaware offered him privacy and simplicity, hallmarks of a state that has attracted more than one million business entities. Unlike some states, Delaware doesn’t require companies to publicly disclose the names of their managers. In October 2016, the month Mr. Cohen created the entity used in the deal with Ms. Clifford, Delaware officials recorded 10,574 new limited liability companies.

The Journal previously reported that Ms. Clifford, 38 years old, had been in talks with ABC’s “Good Morning America” in the fall of 2016 about an appearance to discuss Mr. Trump, according to people familiar with the matter.

Mr. Cohen last week sent the Journal a two-paragraph statement by email addressed “TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN” and signed by “Stormy Daniels” denying that she had a “sexual and/or romantic affair” with Mr. Trump. “Rumors that I have received hush money from Donald Trump are completely false,” the statement said.

Ms. Clifford didn’t respond to a request for comment Thursday and didn’t respond to several emails seeking comment last week.

So InTouch weekly dropped their 2011 interview leading to the question, why didn't they drop it during 2016? Did they find it unbelievable? Were they afraid of a libel suit?

In Touch magazine published its 5,000-word interview with the pornographic actor Stormy Daniels on Friday — more than six years after Trump’s long-time attorney, Michael Cohen, sent an email to In Touch’s general counsel saying Trump would aggressively pursue legal action if the story was printed, according to emails described to the AP by the former employees.

Up to 800,000 federal workers were told to stay home after the White House and Congress failed to strike a compromise on a government spending bill. Workers deemed essential and armed forces personnel were asked to stay at work. If the shutdown continues, they will likely work unpaid.

With crisis talks under way, Trump cancelled a trip to his Florida retreat at Mar-a-Lago, where he had hoped to celebrate his year in office at a gala dinner.

Instead, as protesters marked their own anniversary of major anti-Trump demonstrations outside the White House and in other major cities, the president stayed in Washington, firing off angry tweets.

Apparently it's those inflexible Dems, refusing to be screwed over. Certainly not the inflexible Reps, who want do undo everything positive done during Obama. Oh, and give tax cuts to the rich, and get into some more wars.

I'd rather they had a shutdown fight over surveillance reform more than DACA. But section 702 got reauthorized with little debate, as usual.

President Trump is accused of paying $130,000 in hush money to porn star Stormy Daniels to hide an affair a month before the election. In what is probably just a coincidence, the Trump campaign transferred $130K to the Trump businesses a month after the election.

It is probably a coincidence, but seeing as Cohen wasn't dumb enough to hide his name on the LLC, this kind of stupidity is plausible.

“We kind of gave him—‘All right, you get a mulligan. You get a do-over here,’” Perkins told me in an interview for the latest episode of POLITICO’s Off Message podcast.
…
Evangelical Christians, says Perkins, “were tired of being kicked around by Barack Obama and his leftists. And I think they are finally glad that there’s somebody on the playground that is willing to punch the bully.”

What happened to turning the other cheek? I ask.

“You know, you only have two cheeks,” Perkins says. “Look, Christianity is not all about being a welcome mat which people can just stomp their feet on.”

The evangelical reaction, according to Perkins, was “‘Look, I agree with [Trump]. I can’t stand John McCain.’ I think that’s what people were connecting with.”

He acknowledged that doesn’t seem very Christian, “but again, I think this president, in his authenticity, is what has connected with people.”

As long as Trump doesn’t disappoint evangelicals politically, Perkins predicts, they’ll stick with him. “Whenever the policy stops, and his administration reverts to just personality,” he adds, “that’s where I believe the president will be in trouble.”

"We don't agree with everything he says, just the way he says it!" My ass. It turns out evangelicals are giant assholes.

Not the best source, on multiple fronts, but Bannon claimed Trump paid off a hundred women in Wolff's book. Applying some real cynicism, I'd kill his claim by an order of a magnitude and assume that's the upper limit. So maybe 10 at most, though I'd be surprised if it was even 5.

Of course, I'm sure news orgs are combing Delaware LLCs for evidence. You'd think they might have found some by now.

That's the dangerous thing with “truthiness”: nobody was surprised to hear that Trump had an affair with a porn star and paid her off to keep quiet, because it rings true. And I think most will believe the claim that she wasn't the only one even if we don't know the details. However, we should keep two things in mind: first of all, Steve Bannon is not a reliable source. And more importantly, I don't think the sex lives of politicians should matter. I know, I know, if this were Barack Obama … but we should move forward and contribute to becoming a society where we do not give a sh*t about the sex lives.

That's the mind-bender. I don't think it should matter either, (though I'll certainly make some judgements about having sex with a porn star... while newly married... shortly after your child was born..) I'm just flabbergasted at how utterly indifferent the right has been with the revelation.

Trump was 100% right when he said he could murder someone of 5th avenue and not lose support.

20 years from now the history book will be wild. This strange nationalist aberration for whom nothing mattered.

That's the mind-bender. I don't think it should matter either, (though I'll certainly make some judgements about having sex with a porn star... while newly married... shortly after your child was born..) I'm just flabbergasted at how utterly indifferent the right has been with the revelation.

I wouldn't say indifferent, I would use the word hypocritical and morally shallow. Republicans in Alabama almost elected a pedophile to office simply because he had an R next to his name on the ballot. It is easy to do the right thing when it doesn't cost you anything or you stand to benefit from it. But those aren't the times where morality is needed — that's necessary to do the right thing despite the cost.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar

20 years from now the history book will be wild. This strange nationalist aberration for whom nothing mattered.

Are you sure it'll be a blip on the radar of history? If trends continue, it stands to get worse. Outcomes of elections are called into question. There are fewer and fewer universally accepted truths. Everything is framed in terms of good vs. evil, black and white, us vs. the others.

I'm saying this because Trump isn't the cause, he is a symptom of a rot that started decades ago. Even if Trump leaves the office tomorrow, there are enough politicians out there that grew up in the same toxic environment. Trump wasn't the first one to latch onto wild claims of voter fraud or used polarization to win elections. Politicians started to lend credence to statements that are in contradiction to the vast majority of scientific evidence. I'm very concerned about the future of the US.

Are you sure it'll be a blip on the radar of history? If trends continue, it stands to get worse. Outcomes of elections are called into question. There are fewer and fewer universally accepted truths. Everything is framed in terms of good vs. evil, black and white, us vs. the others.

Sure? Absolutely not.

What I'm seeing is that no other politicians seem able to replicate Trump's appeal and succeed. I also look at how the electorate acted and reacted in the 2008 post-Bush hangover election and see that as likely. The problem is the post 2024 hangover – do we get another 2016? Backlash to the backlash?

The other angle is that we are clearly in a political realignment. While I acknowledge that realignment won't be over before this decade is, I think some of the worse facets, namely the racism, will be pushed back against hard. In 2004 it was homophobia. Hopefully by 2024 we'll be back on track.

I do think the consequentialist evangelicals are here to stay. As well as the confrontational wing of progressives in the Sanders mold. Which leaves us with a possible future where if both those factions take hold of the party (I don't think they will) the right will have declared war on the modern society and secularism while the left declares war on capitalism and tax avoidance.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

I'm saying this because Trump isn't the cause, he is a symptom of a rot that started decades ago. Even if Trump leaves the office tomorrow, there are enough politicians out there that grew up in the same toxic environment. Trump wasn't the first one to latch onto wild claims of voter fraud or used polarization to win elections. Politicians started to lend credence to statements that are in contradiction to the vast majority of scientific evidence. I'm very concerned about the future of the US.

You're not wrong. The largest hurdle is that the right's old guard, which were cynical but pragmatic bullshit artists are now being replaced by younger intractable conservatives that truly believe the lies they've been peddling for two to three decades.

We're, uh, pretty far off topic aren't we? Maybe we should start a thread for how people see the future of US politics.

The other angle is that we are clearly in a political realignment. While I acknowledge that realignment won't be over before this decade is, I think some of the worse facets, namely the racism, will be pushed back against hard. In 2004 it was homophobia. Hopefully by 2024 we'll be back on track.

On the other hand, racists no longer feel constrained by the decency of the majority to keep their bile to themselves. In a two-party winner takes all system is that larger and larger groups “no longer have a choice”. If you are black and in Alabama, you can choose between the Democrats and the Democrats. The same goes for former Republicans you don't want to go along for the ride. And many of them don't want to become Democrats.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar

I do think the consequentialist evangelicals are here to stay. As well as the confrontational wing of progressives in the Sanders mold. Which leaves us with a possible future where if both those factions take hold of the party (I don't think they will) the right will have declared war on the modern society and secularism while the left declares war on capitalism and tax avoidance.

Good points. Although one quibble: I don't think it is apt to say that “the left declares war on capitalism” — just because the Sanders wing wants to introduce universal health care. That completely mainstream amongst conservative politicians in “capitalist” aka Western countries apart from the US.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar

You're not wrong. The largest hurdle is that the right's old guard, which were cynical but pragmatic bullshit artists are now being replaced by younger intractable conservatives that truly believe the lies they've been peddling for two to three decades.

Exactly right, that's been the escalating cycle for decades, Newt Gingrich used it when I started following US politics during my year abroad in PA. And with every generation, it has gotten worse.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar

We're, uh, pretty far off topic aren't we? Maybe we should start a thread for how people see the future of US politics.

Yeah, sorry. If you want, we can spin off our discussion in a separate thread.

Oh, but did we catch them in the act, or what? You know what I’m talking — (laughter) — oh, did we catch them in the act? They are very embarrassed. They never thought they were going to get caught. We caught them. Hey, we caught them. It’s so much fun. We’re like the great sleuth. (Laughter.)

When you vote for a piece of shit to prevent abortions, but it turns out he doesn't care about domestic violence.

"I found out about it recently and I was surprised by it," Trump said. "We certainly wish him well. It's obviously a very tough time for him. He did a very good job while he was in the White House."
"We hope that he will have a wonderful career," Trump added.
Trump said "it was very sad when we heard about it."

Great judgment, conservatives.

I'm not convinced he wrote this, but as always the hypocrisy is astounding.

^^^ What I see in common is what the guys say. What the gal says isn't considered or mentioned. And what the guy says comes before evidence. Like for example, Roy Moore signing a teen's yearbook. But he denied it, so that's that.

“Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly,” Mr. Cohen said in a statement to The New York Times. “The payment to Ms. Clifford was lawful, and was not a campaign contribution or a campaign expenditure by anyone.”

He declined to answer several follow-up questions, including whether Mr. Trump had been aware that he made the payment, why he made the payment or whether he had made similar payments to other people over the years.

Mr. Cohen said that he had given a similar statement to the Federal Election Commission in response to a complaint filed by the government watchdog group Common Cause, which filed a complaint saying that the payment, which was made through a limited liability company that Mr. Cohen established, was an in-kind contribution to the Trump campaign.

Officials with Common Cause also sought to determine whether the payment was made by the Trump Organization or another person.

“The complaint alleges that I somehow violated campaign finance laws by facilitating an excess, in-kind contribution,” Mr. Cohen said in his statement. “The allegations in the complaint are factually unsupported and without legal merit, and my counsel has submitted a response to the F.E.C.”

A government-watchdog group filed complaints Tuesday with the Federal Election Commission and the Justice Department asking the agencies to investigate a $150,000 payment to a former Playboy centerfold model who sold her story of an alleged affair with President Donald Trump to the publisher of the National Enquirer.

American Media Inc. agreed in August 2016 to pay Karen McDougal for the rights to her story of the alleged 2006 affair, which it then didn’t publish, a tactic known in the tabloid world as “catch and kill,” The Wall Street Journal previously reported, citing documents reviewed by the newspaper and people familiar with the matter.

Common Cause, based in Washington, D.C., said in its complaints filed Tuesday that the AMI payment to Ms. McDougal was intended to influence the election by keeping her story under wraps. The complaints, which name Mr. Trump, the Trump campaign and AMI, said the payment amounted to an illegal in-kind contribution and violated federal reporting requirements.

“Last week the president’s personal lawyer acknowledged giving a $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels,” Karl said. “Is the president aware that his lawyer paid that kind of money to a porn star to buy her silence? Does he have proof of that?”

“I haven’t asked him about it,” Shah said. “That matter has been asked and answered in the past.”

But not in the White House briefing room. And not since the Feb. 13 admission from Cohen that he paid out the hush money.

“This is the first time we’ve had a chance to ask about it,” Karl said. “Can you go back and find out if the president approves of the fact that his personal –”

I mean, given what we know about Russian meddling its entirely possible that they are trying organize pro and anti gun control protests right now.

The question is what influence such activities might have, and how people use this argument of “paid protestors”. Let me start with the latter: if you are arguing that e. g. the women's marches were just a series of paid protests, you're doing that to dismiss these protests as being fake, that “real” Americans don't actually feel this way. Even now some go on record and dismiss the victims (e. g. one of the victim's dad's was a former FBI agent which apparently is something scandalous and must mean he is a plant). Second in danger (and stupidity) are claims that “these people hate freedom”. Both arguments are meant to end the discussion with other people, to preclude the possibility of them having good arguments. Groups arguing for gun control have existed for as long as I remember US politics.

The second thing is whether Russia's or anyone else's efforts are stoking the flames. I don't think the US gun control debate is a good fit, not least because it has already been politically polarized for decades. There is nothing Russian meddlers would have to do here. Even with the resources, this Russian troll farm (and perhaps others that we don't know of) are better suited at influencing smaller, local groups and issues.

So Trump is openly talking about breaking the Constitution, and I'm guessing no (R) has criticized. Love to be wrong on that.

I remember near the end of George Bush (Jr)'s tour, I was increasingly afraid he would ignore the election. Just stay in office, and lock up the pres-elect or something. I suppose I'm less worried about Trump because he's so scattershot.

So Trump is openly talking about breaking the Constitution, and I'm guessing no (R) has criticized. Love to be wrong on that.

The silence is deafening. Ditto on the lack of complaints about grifting by him and his family (e. g. Trump making the government pay for his stays at the “Winter White House” or Jared Kushner organizing a loan for him and his family in the White House).

Adult film star Stormy Daniels sued Donald Trump Tuesday, alleging that he never signed the nondisclosure agreement that his lawyer had arranged with her.

The civil suit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court and obtained by NBC News, alleges that her agreement not to disclose her "intimate" relationship with Trump is not valid because while both Daniels and Trump's attorney Michael Cohen signed it, Trump never did.

Stephanie Clifford, known professionally as Stormy Daniels, signed both the agreement and a side letter agreement using her professional name on October 28, 2016, just days before the 2016 presidential election. Cohen signed the document the same day. Both agreements are appended to the lawsuit as Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2.

The "hush agreement," as it's called in the suit, refers to Trump throughout as David Dennison, and Clifford as Peggy Peterson. In the side letter agreement, the true identity of DD is blacked out, but Clifford's attorney, Michael Avenatti, says the individual is Trump.

Each document includes a blank where "DD" is supposed to sign, but neither blank is signed.

According to the lawsuit, which Avenatti announced in a tweet, Clifford and Trump had an intimate relationship that lasted from summer 2006 "well into the year 2007." The relationship allegedly included meetings in Lake Tahoe and at the Beverly Hills Hotel.

The suit also says that Trump must know that Cohen is trying to silence Clifford, since rules for the New York bar, of which Cohen is a member, require him to keep his client informed at all times. "[I]t strains credulity to conclude that Mr. Cohen is acting on his own accord and without the express approval and knowledge of his client Mr. Trump."

1. I agree with the suit. A contract isn't binding unless both parties sign.

2. I'm not sure why this is an issue worth hushing up. At least one French President (Mitterrand I think, but pre-internet, so I'm having trouble finding a link) had their polls go up after the press found a mistress. The voters had been concerned he was too old for another term. The affair proved otherwise.